Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Any lawyers seen the video of RMW "explaining" GC beliefs?

216 replies

MuffinWoman · 14/02/2023 09:15

I don't think I can say what was said here due to copyright but in my opinion it is an intensely biased explanation of GC beliefs. Why get someone so opposed to GC beliefs to explain what they are in such a partisan way?

In essence, it presents GC as an extreme belief that is challenging for employers to accommodate (it says that if an employer finds out they have an employee with GC beliefs the first thing they should do is not panic!!!) and says that people with GC beliefs think trans people are "wrong" and should not be supported.

It is on one of the leading legal subscription websites - not sure if I can say which but it's not Lexis!

OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
WarriorNun · 14/02/2023 09:17

I understand why Maya needed this framed as "belief" under her case but I did worry about this kind of hyperbolic rhetorical backlash.

Genderism is the belief. The ideology. They're DARVOing

NotTerfNorCis · 14/02/2023 09:26

Have you got a link to the video?

LizzieSiddal · 14/02/2023 09:27

says that people with GC beliefs think trans people are "wrong" and should not be supported.

So this person is telling employers to discriminate against anyone who is GC?

MissPollysFitDolly · 14/02/2023 09:31

LizzieSiddal · 14/02/2023 09:27

says that people with GC beliefs think trans people are "wrong" and should not be supported.

So this person is telling employers to discriminate against anyone who is GC?

No, GC people think trans should not be supported.

RMW must surely know that's not true. Shockingly deceitful!

ghislaine · 14/02/2023 09:34

Is it a popular employment law mailing list?

Original poster
MuffinWoman · 14/02/2023 09:41

I can't link as it's a subscription service. Yes, I would say its the most popular website for lawyers and sends out daily email updates. Essentially Google for lawyers.

OP posts:
Original poster
MuffinWoman · 14/02/2023 09:43

Hopefully as it goes to lawyers rather than employers there will be enough critical thinking applied to see through it. I am going to complain though. It seems unethical to me. I would be very interested to hear any other lawyers' thoughts on it.

OP posts:
picklemewalnuts · 14/02/2023 09:50

He's also done a nasty piece about Brianna being feminists fault. And that of politicians for examining policy. Bastards, apparently.

Igmum · 14/02/2023 09:51

Well if it's sent out to lawyers surely they will know that RMW is a div? Some will be on Mumsnet surely? They will have seen RMW's idiocies. Give them enough rope...

MichaelFabricantWig · 14/02/2023 09:55

Plc presumably?

scottish legal news posted this absolute shocker yesterday

twitter.com/scottishlegal/status/1625119211570835459?s=46&t=qP5uW9jJG-yn84CwSYof7w

RoyalCorgi · 14/02/2023 10:00

picklemewalnuts · 14/02/2023 09:50

He's also done a nasty piece about Brianna being feminists fault. And that of politicians for examining policy. Bastards, apparently.

That's really worrying. Surely that breaches contempt of court rules? And surely a lawyer would know that?

DerekFaker · 14/02/2023 10:01

picklemewalnuts · 14/02/2023 09:50

He's also done a nasty piece about Brianna being feminists fault. And that of politicians for examining policy. Bastards, apparently.

It truly is repulsive

www.independent.co.uk/voices/brianna-ghey-trans-girl-stabbed-death-b2281353.html

howmanybicycles · 14/02/2023 10:01

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Original poster
MuffinWoman · 14/02/2023 10:10

The worrying thing is that the employers lawyers thought it was appropriate to approach RMW to create this content in the first place. It suggests that the main people giving legal advice to lawyers are biased and definitely not GC.

OP posts:
Original poster
MuffinWoman · 14/02/2023 10:10

*employment lawyers

OP posts:
howmanybicycles · 14/02/2023 10:11

DerekFaker · 14/02/2023 10:01

Show quote history

This is an appalling article. Robin really does come across as so blinkered to anyone else's needs but Robin's own.

"Will Sunak call out the false narratives that tell us that allowing trans people to live decently is a threat to the safety of women and girls? To find an accommodation with the Scottish GRR?" This is another lie. The narratives are that MEN are a threat to the safety of women and girls. If they weren't, there often would be no need for sex-segregated spaces at all. Robin, however, does not argue for abolition of sex-segregation. Robin argues for males being allowed into females spaces.

What Robin fails to think about (because why would Robin bother, there is no person gain in it) is that the arguments about dehumanisation is exactly what happens when women are reduced to their body parts in order that some men can say they are just like us (because the body part is, of course, incidental to the experience of womanhood).

Of course it's not OK for a TW to have a drink thrown at them. That is not an argument for men in women's sports, prisons, rape centres etc.

The murder of Brianna is an absolute tragedy and indefensible. The murder of every woman is also a tragedy and indefensible. The rate at which women are murdered is also much higher than the rate at which trans people are murdered. Robin's arguments make life less safe for women. If Robin were really interested in everyone's safety, Robin would be campaigning for actual trans rights within an ideology which recognises a TW as a sub-set of male.

NecessaryScene · 14/02/2023 10:11

And surely a lawyer would know that?

This is the White family motto. It's on the crest. In Latin though.

BordoisAgain · 14/02/2023 10:21

RoyalCorgi · 14/02/2023 10:00

That's really worrying. Surely that breaches contempt of court rules? And surely a lawyer would know that?

Show quote history

We're talking about the person who came on here to berate a woman talking about a legal case that they (RMW) are part of the the opposing counsel for....

Original poster
MuffinWoman · 14/02/2023 10:31

I've always been of the opinion that RMW regularly breaches ethics. But I'm particularly concerned that a very well-respected and much used service for lawyers is now pinning its anti-GC colours to the mast.

OP posts:
Original poster
MuffinWoman · 14/02/2023 10:35

Can you imagine lawyers telling employers "not to panic" if they find out that one of their lawyers is a Muslim?! Or black?! It's massively offensive.

OP posts:
dunBle · 14/02/2023 10:46

Interestingly, amongst all the hyperbole from RMW, OJ and others in the wake of Brianna's death, I found this really thoughtful, measured twitter thread from Stephen Whittle.
twitter.com/stephenwhittle/status/1625141673855488000

picklemewalnuts · 14/02/2023 10:58

Agree dunBle. Not sure about vigils though. Is this child's death more important than the others? Is it a vigil about knife crime among children? I hope so.

It's unfortunate someone GC has posted specifying Brianna's sex. That's unhelpful and inflammatory, IMO.

nilsmousehammer · 14/02/2023 11:03

I will be interested to see Murray, Blackburn and Mackenzie's response to this, and Spero's. I find that they usually have a dispassionate and professional summary to offer.

WarriorNun · 14/02/2023 11:04

There is an increasing issue of knife crime among children. I think woman's hour were right to place this within that scope yesterday.

This next paragraph is only in relation to the above: All my safeguarding briefings have included county lines for the last year or so. Eg Local secondary SEND school has never had an issue with it before but do now. Parents need the money so turn a blind eye.

It was good to see a more nuanced view from whittle.

CharlieParley · 14/02/2023 11:07

I don't think I can say what was said here due to copyright

You absolutely can. Quotation for the purpose of criticiam or review is explicitly allowed for in law. Please see the article below for a comprehensive explanation.

www.copyrightuser.org/understand/exceptions/quotation/